Calvinism or Arminianism?

Post Reply New Topic

Is God Sovereign? Do people have responsibility? Etcetera, what is your view?

Could you begin the discussion with a definition of each term? I've never heard of Arminianism before.

Calvinism is the doctrine of John Calvin which is typically summed up with the following beliefs:

Total depravity: men are by nature utterly evil and at birth are enemies of God
Unconditional election: we aren't saved by our acts but rather the choice is ordained on who will be saved.
Limited atonement: The death of Jesus was meant for saving the elect as the unelected are still damned.
Irresistible grace: The holy spirit is powerful enough to absolutely save those whom God wants saved.
Perseverance of the saints: A person cannot lose salvation, either they have it or they don't.

This ends up creating the acronym TULIP.

Arminianism is typically noted for rejecting the last 4 points of Calvinism. Arminius rejected the last 4, but another group which is lumped in with Arminianism is noted for rejecting the first. I am not sure how formally this term is being used either as no distinction between Arminianism and the more extreme view of Open Theism has been made and no other theological views are included, so it could be simply the last 4 points or all 5 or simply most points of Calvinism.

From wikipedia though, here are the points of Arminianism:

* Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation
* Salvation is possible by grace alone
* Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation
* God's election is conditional on faith in Jesus
* Jesus' atonement was for all people
* God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
* Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith

And thus we see that according to wiki, Arminianism rejects the last 4 points of Calvinism.

I think that both views end up asserting God's sovereignty but I think that Calvinists might argue that Arminian thinkers must logically deny this due to the issue of a more libertarian view of free will. Arminians might argue that Calvinists deny responsibility by making God completely in control, but Calvinists tend to be compatibilists I think and thus would assert that people are responsible because they get to act on their nature. Some far off branches of Arminianism(the open theism I spoke of earlier), do reject God's sovereignty and his foreknowledge and some far off branches of Calvinism(hyperCalvinism) can deny much of what we view as man's responsibility.

Here are links on the views:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

I tend to sympathize more with Calvinist theology than Arminian theology because I disagree with the reconcilability of the libertarian free will and foreknowledge of God and I think that Open Theism is wrong because I believe that God is understood to be sovereign.

only a christian would care about ths crap. the rest of us dont

Well, only people interested in Christian theology would as many Christians aren't but I would imagine that an atheist philosopher of religion might find this reasonably interesting. Heck, I know a Hellenist(former Catholic) who thinks that Open Theism is the best interpretation due to the importance of man's responsibility.

good for you. then don't bother answering the question.

I am not a Calvinist, but I would not label myself as an armenian either. I think "armenianism" is an oversimplified concept which calvinists use to make theology into an either/or, black or white thing. I think its a little more complex than that. Man's will and God's are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think anyone has a duty to be interesting to those of other theological persuasion, so why not leave the discussion to those who care?

Well, I think by claiming that then you discredit Arminianism. The either/or element of this idea is oversimplified but most Protestant churches ARE either/or as Arminianism and Calvinism are the two dominant theological views in the churches. There are separate views as Lutherans have their own ideas as do Catholics and Orthodox people, but unless you are in those groups you likely subscribe to or have affiliations with a group that subscribes to Arminianism or Calvinism.

The issue really ends up being how we will understand man's will in relationship to God's will though. You are correct, but depending on how we define free will. Some definitions of man's free will and God's sovereignty lead to logical impossibilities that are usually only reconciled with bad theological views, other ideas work better, but there is still this issue of definition as I think most Calvinists claim they belief in man's free will, and I think most Arminians claim to believe in God's will.

I was raised Presbyterian, which is a Calvinist sect, but I have some issues with the predestination/no free will ideas. It seems a bit too elitist for me- "We're going to Heaven because God has chosen us over everyone else, and there's nothing people outside our community can do about it. My own personal view (or, more appropriately, hope) is that all humans have the free will and personal choice to either accept or reject the offer of salvation. But, hey, who am I to decide something like that? I'll leave decisions over who does or doesn't go to Heaven up to God, as I doubt I would be permitted to overrule Him on that subject anyways.

So, John Calvin himself might or might not have been selected for Heaven? Is this the idea?

Well, both groups sort of agree on that, but differ on the selection. Arminians say that God ordained that that the people he knew would select him would enter heaven, and Calvinists say that God ordained who would select him and enter heaven. The issue basically comes down to a relationship between God's will and man's will, and Arminians tend to try to reconcile a libertarian view of free will with God's sovereignty and foreknowledge and they use arguments like claiming "God is outside of time and therefore he can know what we will choose without necessarily forcing us to choose him", which is an argument you can see in Mere Christianity and I think it goes back to Boethius. Calvinists simply claim "Man needs God to save us from our total depravity and bend our hearts towards him and thus the only way that a person can go to God is to be chosen by God", this leads to different views as Arminians see us and God working together towards salvation, and Calvinists see God as giving us our salvation and it not being our direct choosing so much.

The soul (or divine within each person) does not need salvation.

Would someone not chosen by God need God to save him from his total depravity?

If someone is not chosen by God, then that person would have either to save himself from his total depravity, or to accept his total depravity. (Or, like an Aspie who can't find a girlfriend, whine about how unfair God is).

Either way, an individual not chosen by God would have no use for God.

It doesn't seem much different from the Jewish idea of the Chosen People.

Also includes the concept of Providence (?) and pre-destiny?

I reject the last 5 points (at least) of Calvin, so I guess I am not Arminianist either

If you aren't chosen by God then God won't save you because it is not in his plans. All people need to be saved by God.

Well, a person who is totally depraved and unsaved would not really want to be saved anyway, that is why nobody could choose God unless God chooses them.


Absolutely correct!

Well, unless I misunderstand what you mean by providence, I think that classical theology contains both points, just Calvinism tends to emphasize these elements. I think most Christian theologians think that God has a plan of some form, Arminians just think that man has a free will and that can be seen as having a tension in the belief. Open theists are the ones who outright reject predestination though, and they are a rather heretical group in the eyes of most Christians but there are some intelligent thinkers who believe this idea.

Well, you are probably closer to Arminianism than Calvinism, and some Calvinists will lump a disbelief in total depravity in with Arminianism and some who claim to be Arminians also hold to a disbelief in total depravity. Some would call the rejection of total depravity a variant of Pelagianism though.


And that fits in more with the theological concept of open theism, which is more related to Arminianism than to other theological ideas, but it is not the same because it rejects classical theology where God already knows all of the future and on some level has a plan.